General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsReagan's "Welfare Queen" FOUND!
“She has eighty names, thirty addresses,” Reagan warned during his 1976 run for President about a nameless, Cadillac-driving woman who’s conning the social safety net. He added: “She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names.” In total, Reagan said, “Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000.” For more than thirty years, Republicans have used the existence of this “Welfare Queen” to justify their attacks on public spending and prove that the “welfare state” has run amok. Yet, her identity has never been revealed. After decades of searching, the best and brightest minds in the field of journalism were never able to discover who’s behind the wheel of the “Welfare Queen’s” Cadillac, or if she even existed.
That is until now.
We now realize our mistake. In our search for this “Welfare Queen,” we were looking for actual people when we should have been looking for corporate people. We should have been looking at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is the largest private employer and brought in more revenue in 2011 than any other company in the nation. Wal-Mart pocketed a not-too-shabby $16.4 billion in profits that same year and the six Wal-Mart heirs, the Walton family, own roughly $100 billion in wealth, which is more than 40% of Americans combined. But, despite making all of this money, Wal-Mart’s business model hinges on mooching from the government. It hinges on being the biggest “Welfare Queen” in the United States.
Because of the “everyday low wages” that the retail giant pays its employees, our government has to step in and provide public assistance to Wal-Mart workers just so they can survive…which is why the Wal-Mart workforce represents the largest recipient of federal aid in the nation. A Wal-Mart worker makes on average 31% less than a worker for any other large retailer, and requires 39% more in public assistance. A recent study by UC Berkeley found that Wal-Mart’s low wages are costing the state of California alone $86 million a year to provide public assistance like food stamps and healthcare to the retailer’s 44,000 low-wage employees in the state. The state spends nearly $2,000 every single year on each Wal-Mart employee who can’t afford basic essentials like housing, food, and healthcare with their Wal-Mart paycheck.
In total, it’s estimated that Walmart stores loot more than $2.6 billion every single year from the federal government in the form of tax-payer funded public assistance to their employees. That includes more than one billion in healthcare costs associated with Medicaid, and $225 million in free or reduced-price lunches for school children of Wal-Mart employees. And now, as reported by the Huffington Post, Wal-Mart is planning to loot even more from us taxpayers, as the giant corporation adopts a new healthcare policy that will deny insurance for any employees working fewer than 30 hours a week. Wal-Mart routinely forces their workers into part-time schedules, working fewer than 30 hours a week, so many will lose their health insurance under this new policy. When asked for comment by the Huffington Post on how many workers will be affected, Wal-Mart declined to answer.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13127-reagans-welfare-queen-found
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)
northoftheborder
(7,637 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... figure this out?
Really?
Some of us dumbass, ordinary people have known it for 2 decades.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)The pennies a few poor people get that are gaming the system pales in comparison to the billions in tax deductions and subsidies that the rich get. However, if you want to appeal to bigots and confirm their racist views, then you attack the social safety net because using actual racist rhetoric gets you marginalized in the media.
LisaLynne
(14,554 posts)That's what it is.
Segami
(14,923 posts)
nxylas
(6,440 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2012, 10:03 AM - Edit history (1)
"Why do you have to bring race into everything?" That's the standard 'bagger response whenever anyone cracks their super-secret code. Some of them even gat paid for it (see: practically any column in the National Review since Obama got elected).
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)a racist message.
Republicans wanted the majority but they had several problems. One was Nixon. And then there were the unions. And in addition, Republican ideas weren't popular. (Those weren't their only problems.)
Historically, Republicans, he party of Lincoln, had not been racist. Eisenhower had even used the appearance of force to support the Supreme Court's decision to integrate the schools in Little Rock.
But, after Goldwater's candidacy, Republicans had attracted a lot of really stuck-in-the-mud-of-hate conservatives and were progressing toward the horrible racist, retrograde bunch they are today.
Then there was Nixon with Watergate, the ugly end of the Viet Nam War, Cambodia, etc. To get himself elected, Nixon put "Southern Strategy" into practice. In spite of the fact that the Republican senator from Massachusetts, Edward Brooke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Brooke) was the first African-American to serve in our Congress in the 20th century, Nixon's Southern Strategy played on racist sentiments so well that it pretty much insured that the South would vote Republican for generations to come.
Just when the Republicans were making progress toward building a strong voting base in the country, Nixon's Watergate scandal messed them up.
Carter was a great president with a vision for the future, maybe a leader before his time. Thanks to OPEC (think Saudi Arabia) and the Iranians (the hostage crisis) and high oil prices at a time when our highways were filled with gas guzzlers, the economy went sour due to an oil embargo.
But still, making sure Reagan would be elected required not only meddling (some believe) in crises in foreign countries and huffing and puffing about inflation, but also scaring people.
To see why the welfare queen was racist, you have to remember that the campaign did not just feature the welfare queen. It also focused on crime.
("Law and order" was a powerful conservative theme in the U.S. in the 1960s. The leading exponents in the late 1960s were Republicans Ronald Reagan (as governor of California) and Richard Nixon (as presidential candidate in 1968). They used it to dissolve a liberal consensus about crime that involved federal court decisions and a pushback against illegal drugs and violent gang activity. White ethnics in northern cities turned against the Democratic party, blaming it for being soft on crime and rioters[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_order_%28politics%29)
Both the welfare queen and the soft on crime parts of the scare strategy of the Reagan campaign were veiled accusations against people of color. They worked. Reagan was elected in part because Democrats -- Reagan Democrats -- switched parties identifying the "bad" and "lazy" in our society with people of color.
The term "welfare queen" is racist through and through.
NobodyInParticular
(102 posts)Has anyone ever seen or heard of a depiction of a white welfare queen? If so, it was a token exception of the rule. The rule says, "A real welfare Queen is black."
JPK
(971 posts)Reagan and his treasonist buddies that secretly met and bargained with the Iranians to hold the hostages until after the election thus assuring Carter's defeat but also laying the ground work for Iran Contra. They were treasonously engaged with enemies of the United States to plot what was essentially a bloodless coup. They should have all gone to prison for life.
blm
(114,658 posts)bagger response....
I'm sure you meant to use quotation marks, nxylas. Your post might appear as an attack to someone reading it casually.
Thanks for pointing it out.
blm
(114,658 posts)over posts like that.
I agree completely with your point.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)but wow...he sure sounded like a total jerk, didn't he? If I'd been alive while he was president, I would've been throwing things at my TV every time he appears! It makes me sick to see politicians exploit racism towards certain people in order to score a political advantage.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)back then he was lucid and said some really crazy stuff. By the time he became president, he was the kindly old grandpa.
Do a post asking for comments about Reagan's reign as governor of CA.
nightscanner59
(802 posts)I'm old enough to remember throwing stuff at the television nearly every time he appeared.
Just from memory:
"I'ts been said I favor the rich, I don't deny it"
"I don't see any homeless people"
Heywood J
(2,515 posts)"Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders."
"A tree is a tree. How many more do you have to look at?"
"It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas."
"...the moral equal of our Founding Fathers."
"Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal."
"They've done away with those committees. That shows the success of what the Soviets were able to do in this country."
"I would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
"If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with."
LeftInTX
(34,295 posts)I thought our country had gone sick.
I think voters were ill informed.
I never understood how a state like New York could have voted for him.
Never understood it.
Freddie
(10,104 posts)"Supply side economics"--what we now know as "trickle down fairy dust", a sham to make the rich richer and far too many idiots still believe. Reagan *raised taxes* which hurt the poor and middle class by raising the FICA tax and raising the retirement age.
The unholy alliance of the Repug Party and the Religious Right began in earnest under Reagan. The man himself didn't care one bit about abortion and rarely set foot in a church until he saw how useful these issues could be in getting people to vote against their own interests.
Then there's the virulent anti-union actions and his corrupt foreign policy ventures (Iran-Contra, hostages, etc.)
But I think the main damage done by Reagan was the extreme polarization of the Repug Party into the Party of No they have become.
geardaddy
(25,392 posts)from the communities they destroy.
http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/methodology.html
midnight
(26,624 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)
riverbendviewgal
(4,396 posts)everyone should pass it on
vermont farmguy
(19 posts)While I understand why this could happen, it seems to me that we need welfare reform in that Walmart should be charged for this 2 billion... and that assistance should be higher. Nothing wrong with the Goverment helping out and Walmart shoud be billed via the government... Tax returns should have a number for Walmart employees that automatically chage Walmart the costs...
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)When an employer pays wages so low employees qualify for public assistance of various sorts, a bill for the assistance to the employer from the government is a proper course, and probably sound policy. Public assistance to working people paid low wages is, in effect, a subsidy paid by the government to the employer, and one which goes directly to the employer's personal profit.
LittleGirl
(8,999 posts)and this brilliant article was passed along to my liberal friends that continue to shop there not realizing they are feeding the monster.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)I think we found one of those loopholes you've been looking for!
You're welcome! 
goclark
(30,404 posts)jade3000
(238 posts)I clicked expecting one thing and ended up with something better.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)But Wal*Mart is certainly the worst. It is really important that people understand the total cost of this move to a "big box economy".
We are subsidizing the Walton family. The big crime isn't the tax evasion tricks and all the abatement they are able to extort from communities, or how they wield so much power to crush their competitors AND suppliers alike. The big crime is that the taxpayers have to pay what amounts to 30% of the cost of Wal*Mart's payroll because they don't pay a living wage.
We need universal, single payer health care now. That would eliminate a big part of the subsidies to these third world employers.
mercuryblues
(16,413 posts)30% remark correct. I am not asking because I doubt it or you. I believe it is entirely plausible. I am asking because if I use it in a debate, I want the math to be solid
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)These underpaid employees should qualify for Medicare, Food stamps, WIC, and they are likely to eventually receive a lot more in Social Security than they pay into the system.
30% might actually be an underestimate.
Republicans like to talk about the 47%, but it was REPUBLICAN POLICIES that have inflated that 47%. Republicans have done everything humanly possible to depress earnings. They have fought organized labor at every stage. They have fought every attempt at minimum wage. They have pushed for every possible free trade deal that undermines American jobs. They have created all the tax loopholes that rewards companies for taking jobs offshore.
This stuff didn't just happen. What we have today is the unavoidable result of what Reagan started.
mercuryblues
(16,413 posts)It is all in the phrasing when debating an issue, as you know. I will know to phrase it in such a way that it can't be challenged and plant a seed in the person's mind.
Response to Segami (Original post)
AnotherMcIntosh This message was self-deleted by its author.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Should we, or can we even... legally force Wal-Mart to pay more? Can we legally force them to offer more hours, better benefits? Can we force the people at the top to start giving a a damn about those on the bottom?
I live in a relatively small town where jobs are scarce. A lot of people here should qualify for federal assistance but don't get it because they're too proud to apply. Maine's work ethic has always been strong - and Aroostook County tends to be quite conservative. This doesn't mean that people don't get aid on occasion, they do, but the local community casts them out and looks down on them for it. I can't begin to count how many times I've heard cruel and ignorant words directed at those (very few among us) who receive aid. If they don't "look" poor enough, it's assumed that they aren't and shouldn't be getting it. If they don't have a very obvious, very visible disability, they are considered to be bums, parasites, whatever.
Yeah, Wal-Mart sucks and may very well meet the definition of "Welfare Queen". If we cancel out federal aid that goes to their employees, then our only option would appear to be hoping that the company does the right thing and starts taking care of their workers. That isn't going to happen. The idea of trickle down, the very notion that the rich give a damn about the poor, is, generally speaking (there are exceptions) a load of bull shit.
I understand the resentment directed at Wal-Mart, I understand the anger and the disgust. I just hope it's directed at the company's corporate types and not at the average worker. Because I go to school with a lot of those workers, a lot of them have children, a lot of them couldn't survive without federal and state aid. Nonetheless, they're trying to improve, they're working and going to school, I think that if our society can afford to give them that chance that we should.
I really hope this isn't going to become a case of blaming the victim.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Raising the minimum wage to $12.00/hour would be a good place to start.
TexasBushwhacker
(21,204 posts)That certainly isn't a lot, but a single person could squeak by on it in most places IF they were getting to work 40 hours a week or close to it. A married couple who were both getting that would be making $40K a year. It certainly makes more sense for employers to pay more instead of taxpayers having to subsidize through EIC, SNAP, etc. Then you don't have someone like Romney calling them the "47%".
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I was beginning to think that the "welfare queen" was extinct or never existed like the dodo bird and unicorns.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,689 posts)It would also be nice to acknowledge Alan Grayson for first bringing up the same point about a week ago.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251254348
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
In Slizzard Billionaires News: 62-Year-Old Walmart Heiress Popped For Drankin’ And Drivin’ On Her Birthday
Walmart heiress Alice Walton arrested on DUI charge
Why don’t rich people just hire someone to drive them home when they’ve had too much to drink?!?!?!
A birthday celebration for Alice Walton last week ended on a sour note when the Wal-Mart heiress was arrested in Weatherford on suspicion of driving while intoxicated...
http://bossip.com/475654/in-slizzard-billionaires-news-62-year-old-walmart-heiress-popped-for-drankin-and-drivin-on-her-birthday/
Proof they're all on drugs or drunks! Take back their welfare checks!
Segami
(14,923 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)"Wealth",[2] more commonly known as "The Gospel of Wealth",[3] is an article written by Andrew Carnegie in 1889[4] that describes the responsibility of philanthropy by the new upper class of self-made rich. The central thesis of Carnegie's essay was the peril of allowing large sums of money to be passed into the hands of persons or organizations ill-equipped mentally or emotionally to cope with them.
As a result, the wealthy entrepreneur must assume the responsibility of distributing his fortune in a way that it will be put to good use, and not wasted on frivolous expenditure. In this he represented a captain of industry who had risen to power by his own hand and refused to worship.
Give to give anew
Carnegie based his philosophy on the observation that the heirs of large fortunes frequently squandered them in riotous living rather than nurturing and growing them. Even bequeathing one's fortune to charity was no guarantee that it would be used wisely, since there was no guarantee that a charitable organization not under one's direction would use the money in accordance with one's wishes. Carnegie disapproved of charitable giving that merely maintained the poor in their impoverished state, and urged a movement toward the creation of a new mode of giving which would create opportunities for the beneficiaries of the gift to better themselves. As a result, the gift would not be merely consumed, but would be productive of even greater wealth throughout the society.
Role of Philanthropy and Taxation within Capitalism
In Wealth, Carnegie examines the modes of distributing accumulated wealth and capital to the communities it originates from. He preached that ostentatious living and amassing private treasures was wrong. He praised the high British taxes on the estates of dead millionaires, remarking that "By taxing estates heavily at death the State marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction."[2] His "gospel of wealth" earned much praise, but did not win many converts.
Carnegie made it clear that the rich were best suited for the recirculation of their money back into society where it could be used to support the greater good, given that they are presumed to have a penchant for management of capital. However, he shunned aristocratic chains of inheritance and argued that dependents should be supported in moderation, with the bulk of excess wealth to be spent on enriching the community. In cases where excess wealth was held until death, he advocated its apprehension by the state on a progressive scale: "Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of a rich man's estate which should go at his death to the public through the agency of the State, and by all means such taxes should be grated, beginning at nothing upon moderate sums to dependents, and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell, until of the millionaire's hoard, at least the other half comes to the privy coffer of the State."[2] He claimed that, in bettering society and people here on earth, one would be rewarded at the gates of Paradise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gospel_of_Wealth
Text is available under the Creative Commons,
which is why it is more than 4 paragraphs. Looks like Alice wasnt' educated very well and probably will not be remembered for anything of value in history.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)An alumna of my undergrad college, although a bit older than I am.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)it gained the sponsorship of financier jackson stephens -- who also had a hand in bill clinton's rise.
methinks without that backing &, uh, 'assistance,' walfart would still be a regional chain.
imo the walfart assault on the working & productive classes was by begun with the connivance of the 1%. its success was not accidental.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)
Initech
(108,783 posts)
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)allan01
(1,950 posts)may be wal mart shound be sent the bill for all this .
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)
Berlin Expat
(961 posts)of those on the right who worship the so-called "job creators", the first thought that springs into my head is how much they remind me of the attitude of Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks. Folks who simply don't recognize that those whom they worship have no concern for them whatsoever.
spicegal
(758 posts)corporations don't pay adequate wages or offer healthcare benefits, or even retirement plans. It also drives me crazy to hear right wingers advocate a flat tax so that everyone pays their "fair share". How much sense does that make? So if we tax people who are barely scraping as it is at the same rate as someone making millions, thereby pushing them into requiring more public assistance (or into the streets), what have we accomplished? It's idiotic to say the least.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Boycott the motherfucker...
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,498 posts)He was truly a piece of shit.
mstinamotorcity2
(1,451 posts)remember when he said that and my mom says the would show a black woman driving a cadillac. The start of political false advertisement.
